Cullen v Stanley
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1926 |
| Date | 06 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | (1925. No. 1806.) |
| Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
Candidate for DÃ il Eireann - Definition of "candidate" - Libel - Interlocutory injunction - Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act (46 47 Vict., c. 51), s. 63 (1) - Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923 (No. 38 of 1923), s. 11 (1) and (5).
By s. 11 (1) of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923 (No. 38 of 1923): —"Every person who, before or during any election and for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at that election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of such candidate . . . shall be guilty of an illegal practice"; and by sub-s. (5): —"Any person who shall make or publish any such false statement as is mentioned in this section may be restrained by injunction form any repetition of such false statement or any false statement of a similar character in relation to such candidate, and for the purpose of granting an interim injunction primâ facieproof of the falsity of the statement shall be sufficient." No definition of the word "candidate"is contained in the Act. But s. 63 (1) of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, defines "candidate at an election"and "candidate," respectively, as: —"Any person elected to serve in Parliament at such election, and any person who is nominated as a candidate at such election, or is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate, on or after the day of the issue of the writ for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which such writ has been issued." Section 63 of the Act of 1883 is not repealed by the Act of 1923. Plaintiff, an operative baker, was selected by the Irish Labour Party as the Labour candidate for the representation of North Dublin City in Dáil Eireann. Subsequently the defendants, the editor and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v Malocco
...EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10 GALLAGHER V TUOHY 1924 58 ILTR 134 CULLEN V STANLEY 1926 IR 73 R V BISHOP 1975 1 QB 274 CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1898 S1(f)(II) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 S1(1) (UK) Synopsis Damages Defamation; libel; justifica......
-
Tansey -v- Gill and Others
...2009 S11(2) DEFAMATION ACT 2009 S33 REYNOLDS v MALOCCO 1999 2 IR 203 ELR 274 2002 GALLAGHER v TUOHY 1924 58 ILTR 134 CULLEN v STANLEY 1926 IR 73 DEFAMATION ACT 2009 S33(1) DEFAMATION Interlocutory injunction Publication on internet - Defence of justification - Whether court should interv......
-
Mercury Engineering and Others v McCool Controls & Engineering Ltd
...2005 IEHC 14 BONNARD v PERRYMAN 1891 2 CH 269 COULSON v COULSON 1887 3 TLR 846 GALLAGHER v TUOHY 1924 58 ILTR 134 CULLEN v STANLEY 1926 IR 73 EUROPE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10.1 COLLINS LAW OF DEFAMATION & INTERNET 2ED 2010 80-85 DEFAMATION Injunction Conspirac......
-
Evans and Renaissance Products Ltd and another v Carlyle
...2 CH 269 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10 CONSTITUTION ART 40.6.1 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2 CULLEN v STANLEY 1926 IR 73 INJUNCTION Interlocutory Prohibitory - Mandatory - Defamation - Prior restraint of continuing publication - Criteria to be applied - Likelih......
-
The Relevane of Constitutional Rights to the Granting of an Interlocutory Injunction
...by Cooke J in Quinlavan v O’Dea [2009] IEHC 187, at para.20 71 Citing with approval the decision of the Supreme Court in Cullen v Stanley [1926] IR 73. 72 Reynolds, supra note 67, p.212 73 When discussing the “special factors” that arise for consideration in cases of defamation cases, Keane......